It can get better...

[company] is a world leader in real-time, high fidelity simulation. The Company provides simulation and educational solutions and services to the […] industries. In addition, the Company provides plant monitoring, and signal analysis monitoring and optimization software primarily to the […] industry

This is proper English, insomuch as there are no grammatical or vocabulary errors. However the paragraph is long on words, short on message. It is deeply impersonal, and makes liberal use of weasel words. It is very hard to tell what the company actually does. Since writing the above description, the company in question has dramatically improved it, as follows:

[company] is the World Leader in real-time simulation and training solutions for the […] industries. [company] has delivered over 500 simulation and training applications to 200 customers in 30 countries spanning the globe.

Let's look at the details of their improvements:

"a world leader" >> "the World Leader"

With the indefinite article ("a"), the phrase is functionally worthless. We have no idea how big the market is nor how much competition there is; we know very well, in any case, that any company can claim to be a world leader and we can't reasonably contest it.

With the definite article ("the"), the company is making a bold claim: they lead the world. We may make several confident assumptions:
  • they have the biggest market share
  • they have the most advanced technology
  • they have many imitators

The capitalization of "world leader" is shouting - it's not necessary, and it's somewhat inelegant, but if they are the world leader, then they have something to shout about.

"real-time high fidelity simulation" >> "real-time simulation"

Someone (with a little knowledge of the science of simulation, perhaps) pointed out to them that "high fidelity" is not necessarily the best form of simulation; some simulations work better with more abstraction than with less (more abstraction implies less fine detail - lower fidelity). "high fidelity" had originally been included as puffing-up: it's empty, weasley and possibly even wrong.

Real-time simulation is of course a logical nonsense, however we understand what they mean: 1 simulated hour is equal to 1 real hour. How useful this is in simulation is moot; surely a useful simulation would be one where real hours may be simulated in minutes or seconds? This aside, the phrase is much better without the "high fidelity".

"The Company" >> [company's name]

In an act of dazzling stupidity, in a previous version they used the legalese self reference "the company", thereby missing an opportunity to reinforce the brand. This is thankfully corrected throughout.

"educational solutions and services" >> "training applications"

This one got a cheer from me. Not only is "educational" a wrongful substitution (educational means "pertaining to education" - it isn't an adjective describing "solutions and services", which is how it has been used), it is also a pointless substitution, where the writer may have wanted to avoid the rather pedestrian "training". In addition, we have the double weasel: "solutions and services".

In the new version, boring clarity triumphs over pompous obscurity and "training" is restored to its proper place. Hurrah!. Pity they had to spoil it, replacing the double weasel with the single, "applications", and reintroducing vaguery.

"in addition…[end]" >> "[company] has delivered… [end]"

Instead of more vague product claims, some justification of the opening statement. This is so strong compared with what was there before that we can forgive the rhetorical "spanning the globe" (worldwide would have been simpler and clearer). These stats got a cheer from me too. Flaunting your numbers is a great way to gain credibility. Be prepared to back them up with hard facts, though. A good buyer or auditor will expect this.

The new text could be further improved, but the main spadework has been done, so we'll leave it alone.

No comments: